Meh. Libertarian purity spiral. IMO it's not unprincipled to vote. As much as your vote can be misinterpreted as an endorsement they also interpret not voting as license. We are in an immoral system where we find ourselves captives in a world controlled by psychopaths. It's not entirely dislike a kidnapping situation. To try to manipulate the psychopaths with what few levers you have is completely principled. It's practical.
Promoting a politician that communicated more in line with libertarian culture than the alternative is using your leverage to push politicians in a direction. Later holding politicians to their words and pointing out when they didn't do what they said they would do is also using your limited leverage to push politicians in a direction.
I don't see any violation of libertarian principles, nor any stupidity. I'm still cool with Tom Woods. Maybe because Tom Woods is a historian he knows that people who refuse to play the game handed to them rarely win.
My only questions to assess Tom Woods are.. Does he want more individual freedom? In his case yes. Is he messaging in a way that helps promote it's likelihood? I'd say yes.
I think it's worth noting that Ron Paul/Rand Paul and the Tea Party movement did more to encourage major parties to align with a semi-libertarian standard and got us more libertarian-like advocacy in Congress than the LP ever did.
So my libertarian/ancap purity is so great that if I was acting on it I'd be out shooting cops. But I'm not doing that which means I've switched gears to acting within reality. Principle is out the window. The only principle is do what works to advance freedom. Maybe he'd argue that voting for Trump didn't work. So did not voting for Trump. So does complaining about "impure" libertarians and demanding they have no involvement in major parties.
I protest vote all the time for folks who can't/won't win. At worst it's a waste of time I can talk about. Besides this point, I think Larken is spot on with his ideas for the ideal abstract form of Voluntaryism. But the real world demands compromises. What do you do about criminals, crazies, and exploitation? Free market can't solve all the things. Minarchism is the realistic solution - but Larken will poopoo the idea. Government always wants to grow. Minarchism should always want to reduce it and the bloat. It's the only realistic viable alternative besides Direct Democracy (remove the "representation") with it's own set of flaws - and another idea they don't want the people to have.
Ya. I don't know what the issue is with Tom Woods. I missed that somehow.
I have some issues with Dave Smith though. (Not him being a Jew.) Sometimes his verbose clear messaging is weak when he certainly knows better.
I wish Libertarians (and everyone else) would try to focus on the corruption and figure out alternatives, solutions, and tradeoffs - and demand more reverse-transparency in this panopticon age.
Not just freedom for the self but fair autonomy for everyone - voluntarily.
Shooting cops and bomb-throwing anarchists are all about no-rulers, but violence is the slippery slope to tyranny any way you slice it. Thus one of the many existential paradoxes of life - the supremely peaceful always will be harmed by the vile monopoly on violence. And thus the new clarity term Voluntaryist is necessary to promote.
The Libertarian purity spiral is just another angle to try to illuminate minds. Maybe some of the angles work better than others. Maybe some angles should be left alone.
Log in
Meh. Libertarian purity spiral. IMO it's not unprincipled to vote. As much as your vote can be misinterpreted as an endorsement they also interpret not voting as license. We are in an immoral system where we find ourselves captives in a world controlled by psychopaths. It's not entirely dislike a kidnapping situation. To try to manipulate the psychopaths with what few levers you have is completely principled. It's practical.
Promoting a politician that communicated more in line with libertarian culture than the alternative is using your leverage to push politicians in a direction. Later holding politicians to their words and pointing out when they didn't do what they said they would do is also using your limited leverage to push politicians in a direction.
I don't see any violation of libertarian principles, nor any stupidity. I'm still cool with Tom Woods. Maybe because Tom Woods is a historian he knows that people who refuse to play the game handed to them rarely win.
My only questions to assess Tom Woods are.. Does he want more individual freedom? In his case yes. Is he messaging in a way that helps promote it's likelihood? I'd say yes.
I think it's worth noting that Ron Paul/Rand Paul and the Tea Party movement did more to encourage major parties to align with a semi-libertarian standard and got us more libertarian-like advocacy in Congress than the LP ever did.
So my libertarian/ancap purity is so great that if I was acting on it I'd be out shooting cops. But I'm not doing that which means I've switched gears to acting within reality. Principle is out the window. The only principle is do what works to advance freedom. Maybe he'd argue that voting for Trump didn't work. So did not voting for Trump. So does complaining about "impure" libertarians and demanding they have no involvement in major parties.
Agreed all.
I protest vote all the time for folks who can't/won't win. At worst it's a waste of time I can talk about. Besides this point, I think Larken is spot on with his ideas for the ideal abstract form of Voluntaryism. But the real world demands compromises. What do you do about criminals, crazies, and exploitation? Free market can't solve all the things. Minarchism is the realistic solution - but Larken will poopoo the idea. Government always wants to grow. Minarchism should always want to reduce it and the bloat. It's the only realistic viable alternative besides Direct Democracy (remove the "representation") with it's own set of flaws - and another idea they don't want the people to have.
Ya. I don't know what the issue is with Tom Woods. I missed that somehow.
I have some issues with Dave Smith though. (Not him being a Jew.) Sometimes his verbose clear messaging is weak when he certainly knows better.
I wish Libertarians (and everyone else) would try to focus on the corruption and figure out alternatives, solutions, and tradeoffs - and demand more reverse-transparency in this panopticon age.
Not just freedom for the self but fair autonomy for everyone - voluntarily.
Shooting cops and bomb-throwing anarchists are all about no-rulers, but violence is the slippery slope to tyranny any way you slice it. Thus one of the many existential paradoxes of life - the supremely peaceful always will be harmed by the vile monopoly on violence. And thus the new clarity term Voluntaryist is necessary to promote.
The Libertarian purity spiral is just another angle to try to illuminate minds. Maybe some of the angles work better than others. Maybe some angles should be left alone.